Western Michigan University
ScholarWorks at WMU
Honors Theses
Lee Honors College
3-2004
Surveillance of the Balto-Finnic Speakers: A
Geolinguistic Inquiry
Lindsay E. Gwyther
Western Michigan University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/honors_theses
Part of the Geography Commons
Recommended Citation
Gwyther, Lindsay E., "Surveillance of the Balto-Finnic Speakers: A Geolinguistic Inquiry" (2004). Honors Theses. Paper 1974.
This Honors Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access
by the Lee Honors College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of
ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
Lee Honors College &
College of Arts and Sciences
Department of Geography
Honors Thesis
Surveillance of the Balto-Finnic
Speakers:
A Geolinguistic Inquiry
Author: Lindsay E. Gwyther
Advisors: Dr. Dave Lemberg
Dr. Eldor Quandt
Mr. Robert Dlouhy
Date:
15 March 2004
Western Michigan University
The Carl and Winifred Lee Honors College
.entennial
1903-2003 Celebration
THE CARL AND WINIFRED LEE HONORS COLLEGE
CERTIFICATE OF ORAL EXAMINATION
Lindsay E. Gwyther, having been admitted to the Carl and Winifred Lee Honors College in Fall
2000 successfullypresented the Lee Honors College Thesis on March 12, 2004.
The title of the paper is:
Surveillance of the Balto-Finnic Speakers: A Geolinguistic Inquiry
Dr. David Lemberg, Geography
ca/y~
Dr. Eldor Quandt, Geography
Robert Dlouhy, CELSIS
Kalamazoo, Ml 49008-5244
PHONE: (269) 387-3230 FAX: (269) 387-3903
11
Abstract
Lindsay Gwyther, Department of Geography, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI
49008-5424, lindsav.gwvther(g>wmich.edu
SURVEILLANCE OF THE BALTO-FINNIC SPEAKERS: A GEOLINGUISTIC
INQUIRY
The Balto-Finnic languages of northeast Europe are part of the larger Uralic language family.
Today, there are seven Balto-Finnic speaking nations, two of which govern their own
independent sovereignties (Finland and Estonia). The other five nations lie precariously
within the territorial borders of Russia and Latvia for the most part. This paper examines the
geographic expanse and status ofthese languages over time and through space and develops
a series ofmaps to better illustrate these patterns. Historical research demonstrates that their
distribution has decreased in area, but strengthened and centralized in certain regions,
enabling their presence in a predominantly Indo-European Europe. Contact and conflict with
neighboring languages have had reciprocating effects on one another over time, although the
present individual linguistic conditions vary, naturally, from language to language.
Keywords: Balto-Finnic languages, geolinguistics, settlement patterns
Ill
Tiivistelma
Lindsay Gwyther, Maantieteen Laitos, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI
49008-5424, lindsav.gwyther(g>wmich.edu
KATSAUS ITAMERENSUOMALAISISTA KIELISTA: GEOLINGVISTINEN
TUTKIMUS
Koiliseuroopan itamerensuomalaiset kielet kuuluvat uraliseen kieliperheeseen.
Nykyaan
maailmaassa on seitseman itamerensuomenkielista kansaa, joista vain kaksi, Suomi ja Viro,
ovat itsenaisia kansallisvaltioita. Loput viisi kansaa asuvat suurimmaksi osaksi Venajan ja
Ruotsin alueella.
Tama tutkimus tarkastelee itamerensuomalaisten kielien maantieteellista
levinneisyytta eri aikoina havainnollistaen aihetta kattavalla karttasarjalla. Historiallinen
tutkimus osoittaa kielten maantieteellisen levinnaisyyden yleensa pienentyneen. Toisaalta
tietyilla alueilla kielten asema on jopa parantanut, vahvistaen kielten tulevaisuutta
indoeurooppalaisessa kieliymparistossa. Yleisesti voidaan sanoa, etta yhteydet ja konfliktit
ymparoivien kielien kanssa ovat muokanneet seka itamerensuomalaisia etta ymparoivia
kielia. Kuitenkin jokaisella itamerensuomalaisella kielella on oma erityinen lingvistinen
tilanteensa.
Avainsanat: Itamerensuomalaiset kielet, geolingvistiikka, asutustavat
IV
Preface
Esipuhe
At this time, I would like to express my appreciation to the Lee Honors College for fostering
undergraduate research at the honors level at Western Michigan University and to their
umbrella programs and scholarships, the Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities
Award and the Seibert Travel Award, which helped to fund my investigative excursion to
Finland and Estonia. Also, I would like to extend my warmest gratitude to the Geography
department at the University for their academic support, as well as their financial backing,
through the Lucia Harrison Geography grant. The aforementioned grant enabled me to
plunge into the field of geolinguistics, traveling to Riga, Latvia to attend the Fourth
International Congress for Geolinguists and Dialectologists and expose myself to the most
current geolinguistic research from around the world.
Special thanks are in order for my thesis advisors on the WMU campus Dr. Dave Lemberg,
chair of the thesis committee, and Dr. Eldor Quandt, both of the Geography department, and
Mr. Robert Dlouhy, a language specialist. I also must thank Tuomas Poyry for his assistance
with editing the Finnish language portions of this endeavor.
Kalamazoo, 15 March 2004
Lindsay
"indsav E. Gwvthe*
Gwyth*
0
Table of Contents
Sisallysluettelo
Abstract
Tiivistelma
Preface
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Uralic Language Family
2.1 Finno-Ugric Languages
2.2 Samoyed Languages
3. The Nature of Balto-Finnic Languages
4. Survey of Territorial Expanses
4.1 Theory of Origins
4.1.1 Uralist Theory
4.1.2 Challenging the Uralist Theory
4.1.3 Other Theories
4.2 Formation of Political Boundaries and Policy
4.3 Contemporary Balto-Finnic Society
4.3.1 Present Expanse
4.3.2 Past and Present Languages and Dialects
4.3.3 Language Statuses
5. Spatial Diffusion and Consolidation
5.1 Contact with Indo-European Languages
5.2 Conflict
6. Mapping of Balto-Finnic Languages
6.1 Techniques
6.2 Analysis of Spatial Patterns
7. Legacy
1
3
6
11
13
15
15
16
17
20
. 21
23
23
24
27
29
29
32
35
35
39
43
8. Conclusion
46
Appendix
48
References
49
VI
Index of Figures
Kuva Indeksi
3
Figure 1 Geolinguistics as an interdisciplinary field
4
Figure 2 The Uralic languages
5
Figure 3 Present-day distribution of the Uralic languages
10
Figure 4 Demographic distribution of Balto-Finnic speakers
17
Figure 5 Stammbaum Model
19
Figure 6 Taagepera Sprachbund Model
19
Figure 7 Pusztay Sprachbund Model
21
Figure 8 Theories on Origin of Finns
24
Figure 9 Map of the Balto-Finnic territory today
Figure 10 Examples of maps utilized to create the Balto-Finnic settlement map series 37
38
Figure 11 Theoretic expanse of proto-Balto-Finnic tribes
45
Figure 12 Vepsan Ma
1. Introduction
Geolinguistics is an interdisciplinary field that uniquely bridges geography,
linguistics and data from other related fields in striving to answer essential queries about
which languages are spoken by whom, where they are spoken and since when, as well as how
and why they are spoken (Breton 1993:47-49). Figure 1 illustrates the union of several
disciplines, which, when mixed together, yield geolinguistics. The marriage of these subjects
with geography "relates language to its widest possible context, including the physical and
environmental influences," (Williams and Ambrose 1993:8) and renders necessary the
employment of cartography to best represent the results of studies.
The seven Balto-Finnic languages, widely considered to be members of the Uralic
language family, are spoken by a relatively small number people inhabiting the northeastern
corner of Europe in what is today Russia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Estonia and Latvia.
This region of the world has been considered their homeland for thousands of years and they
the autochthonous inhabitants, despite never having maintained political power in this area.
Throughout history, contact and conflict with neighbors speaking linguistically dissimilar
tongues have helped to shape the contemporary territorial expanses held by the Balto-Finnic
speakers today and to define their national character as distinct from those non-Balto-Finnic
speakers.
The purpose of the following geolinguistic investigation is to demonstrate this
centralizing tendency exhibited by the Balto-Finns via linguistic contact and conflict.
History demonstrates that the territorial expanses of this group of people has decreased;
however, the territory that remains today remains as the center of the Balto-Finnic
civilizations, with spatial implications in the territorial sense, as well as in the cultural sense.
Outside factors and forces from neighboring non-Balto-Finnic speakers have aided in
forming the strong Balto-Finnic identity as wholly separate from that of their neighbors'.
This sense of identity, in turn, has allowed for the continuance oftheir cultural and linguistic
existence, evading ethnic consumption of their tiny populations by larger and threatening
Indo-European speaking neighbors and escaping assimilation into these bigger, dominating
groups.
In order to better facilitate a demonstration of the Balto-Finnic settlement patterns
over time and space, a map series shall be constructed using the ESRI ArcMap computer
program. It is anticipated that a visual construction will assist the argument that these
languages have undertaken a centralizing path to realize their present territorial expanses in
the twenty-first century.
Naturally, the linguistic situation of each language varies
considerably, but it is the intention ofthis paper to examine the Balto-Finnic languages as a
whole.
Relatively unknown outside their immediate sphere of influence, this investigation
offers recognition to this often unnoticed group, written in English, a global language, while
providing a unique opportunity to track the Balto-Finnic languages as a group temporally
and spatially. Moreover, the lack of a map series for the Balto-Finnic languages presents
itself as an attractive challenge to assume.
The trans-disciplinary nature of Geolinguistics
Summary of the "K*en;tifiC orientation" of geoiwngtiist'K: enauiry.
(Freelyadapted from the definition by Breton (1991).)
SOCIETAL ASPECTS
Macro-social evidence,
Including demofcgulsiics,
ethnoliJHJUisttcs
GEOUNGUIST1CS
The tentorial dimension -
physical and human space
in which language exists;
the spatial representation
of language.
^
O^W
^*&&>*
^^f
LINGUISTICS 1
The data source •
language characteristics,
speech forms, language
envelopment
t
ECONOMIC ASPECTS
Language as a cukuraJ
resource - inducing
meda industry,
The "ecology* of language
POLITICAL ASPECTS
institutions influencing
language - the slate and
Its ideological, cultural
and juridical apparatus
Figure 1. Geolinguistics as an interdisciplinary field (Williams and Ambrose 1993:10).
2. The Uralic Language Family
The twenty-eight Uralic languages (see Figure 1) comprise a substantial, yet complex,
language family, whose membership has been the cause of uncertainty in the recent past,
sparking numerous disputes among linguists. While many member languages ofthis family
are neither widely spoken nor distinguished literary languages, the geographical territory they
span is astonishingly vast. Uralic languages are spoken over Eurasia from Fennoscandia,
south to the Baltic States and all across the heart of Russia and Russian Siberia (see Figure
2). Asmall pocket ofthese languages is spoken in present-day Hungary and Romania and,
due to emigration, Uralic languages are spoken in other small isolated regions around the
world.
URALIC LANGUAGES [28]
I. Finno-Ugnc [24]
A.Ugnc[3]
1. Hungarian [1] Hungarian
2. Ob-Ugric [2] Khanty, Mansi
B. Finnic [21]
1. Permic [2] Udmurt, Komi
2. Volgaic [2] Man, Mordvin
3. North Finnic [17]
a. Saamic [10] Southern, Ume, Pite, Lule, Northern, Inari, Skolt,
Akkala, Kildin, Ter
b. Balto-Finnic [7] Finnish, Estonian, Karelian, Veps, Ingrian,
Vote, Livonian
II. Samoyed [4]
A. North [3] Nenets, Enets, Nganasan
B. South [1] Selkup
Figure 2. The Uralic Languages. Modified from Rulen 1991:328.
"CFT
**<? .&*
fi/iflfWrS
SEA
1TAYMYR AUTONOMOUS
J5.
OKRUG*
/>
r
*» i X
*4
j=-^
f /
Jb«
Yaa-lQArJ^(
C ( Penlimila/ II «»* \ *o
NENETS AUTpNOMOUS^ ^JWgffiS
"NORWAY
y^O^«BEMNJ ;,
>*J&: •":(• *v »--^Turk
\J*fkCtfGutf4fFinland
si&Vc -r-xj^ rt> Tallin
v>
—\j&f £? Taljliyi*^:
GEHMANVL
CDurlan
Courlliul^,EOTpNtAv^StJ^3l5°nB0a
••nta salami A
Ptninsul
*£*-... Petefebura*
aM£
„
Tver • • *MARIJfiL1; >v1l AatOMOMOUS OKRUC
,^N,rt'T:^^®i^«J«TIA
RUSS
.5/ No>oarod.
Jx«
IfSSr
SAMOYEDIC
FINNO-UGRIC-
-UGRIC-
-FINNICA. Baltic-Finnic:
Estonian [~
Veps
3
Votic
«
Finnish j ] B. Sami
Ingrian
1
Karelian |
Livonian
D. Marl
^1 E^ordvin |
A. Hungarian fj|
B. Ob-Ugric:
Mansi
S
Nenets
Nganasan
Selktip
Khanty
C. Parmic:
Permyak |
2
Udmurt [
Emets
j
Komi
Diagonal Unas indicata sparsely populatad araas
Figure 3. Present-day distribution of the Uralic languages. Modified from Encyclopaedia Britannica in Wojci 2002.
Most commonly, the Uralic language family is broken down into two main sub-
groupings, the Finno-Ugric languages and the Samoyed languages. The Uralic family was
first identified in the early 1700s by German linguist J.G. von Eckhart; however, the family
was not widely recognized until later, when Finnish linguist M.A. Castren demonstrated the
main Finno-Ugric and Samoyed split and noted some key interrelationships with lexical and
inflectional evidence between the member languages. For his work, Castren is credited with
founding Uralic linguistics in 1854 (Ruhlen 1991:66-67). At times in the past, the Uralic
language family has been extended to include the Altaic languages (Thomsen 1967:1), the
Yukaghir isolate language of Siberia (Ruhlen 1991:64) and even the broadened family of
Uralo-Dravidian has been suggested indays gone by (Marcantonio 2002:66).
The Uralic languages are synthetic, meaning that they string together a series of
symbolic elements to form lengthy words. They are also agglutinative languages, in that they
utilize many particle and. affix appendages to enhance the significance of the base word
(Salminen 1993:29). Due to the language family's immense geographic coverage, languages
in the west tend to be influenced more heavily by Indo-European languages, while Turkic
languages have an effect on the eastern Uralic languages (Suihkonen 2002:165). The
following provides an overview ofthe Uralic language family.
2.1 Finno-Ugric Languages
The linguistic genetic classification of the Finno-Ugric languages verifies the essence
of the Uralic languages, owing to its strength in numbers with 23,000,000 speakers and with
its speakers on the European continent constituting 3.3% of Europe's population (Huovinen
1983:50). The Finno-Ugric languages are found in central and northern Eurasia from the
Arctic Ocean south to Hungary and from the Baltic Sea east to the River Ob (Crystal 1992:
304). Variation in linguistic properties is considerable among the Finno-Ugric languages and
it is therefore reasonable that this linguistic group is split further into the classifications of
Finnic languages and Ugric languages.
The Ugric languages include Hungarian and, settled near the River Ob in Russia, the
Ob-Ugric pair of the Khanty and Mansi languages. These two linguistic groups are
geographically divorced, likely due to the Hungarians' immense resettlement movements to
southern Russia and Eastern Europe, which left the Ob-Ugric tribes behind in the original
homelands of an area east of the Ural Mountains (Wojci 2002). Today, there are 14,000,000
Hungarian speakers.
Eleven million Hungarians inhabit present-day Hungary, while
3,000,000 live as minority groups in Romania, Yugoslavia, Serbia, Slovenia, Ukraine,
Austria and Croatia (Fernandez 1996).
The speakers ofthe Ob-Ugric languages ofKhanty and Mansi live predominantly in
the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Area, while some Khanty live also in the Tomsk Region
and the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Area (Suihkonen 2002:165). According to the 'latest'
1989 Soviet census, there were 22,521 Khantys, though only 11,900 of them lived in the
Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Area, corresponding to only 1.8% ofthe total population of
the autonomous area. Of those 11,900, only 53% spoke Khanty. The Mansis numbered
8,474 in 1989, with 6,600 ofthem living in the autonomous territory and comprising a mere
0.6% of the total area population count. Only 37.1% are still able to converse in Mansi
(Fernandez 1996). Many ofthe newer inhabitants in the region have flocked in to reap the
profits in the oil and gas industry (Wojci 2002), thus marginalizing and further russifying the
native populations.
Comprising the other offshoot of the Finno-Ugric linguistic classification are the
Permic, Volgaic and North Finnic sub-groups. The Permic group of Komi and Udmurt
reside adjacent to the Uralic Mountains on the western side, although some ofthe Komi in
the north reside on both sides of the mountain range.
Mari and Mordvin are the
representative members ofthe Volgaic sub-division and inhabit areas proximate to the Volga
8
River in Russia and the North Finnic faction occupy much of the northern Fennoscandia
peninsula, the Karelian isthmus and the northeastern Baltic region.
The Permic language Komi is often separated into the units of Komi and Permyak,
whose speakers each inhabit their own respective territories: the Komi reside mostly in the
mineral-rich Republic of Komi in Russia, while the Permyak are in the Russian Komi-
Permyak Autonomous Area (Wojci 2002).
Together, the groups account for the
approximately 400,000 speakers ofKomi (Crystal 1992:304). The other Permic language,
Udmurt, is used principally in the Russian Republic of Udmurt and surrounding regions.
There are approximately 500,000 Urdmurts atpresent (Wojci 2002).
Mordvin and Mari are the two linguistic components in the Volgaic branch of the
Finnic languages. Close to 1,000,000 ethnic Mordvins live between the Russian Republic of
Mordvinia and other scattered regions of the Russian Federation (Wojci 2002). The two
Mordvinian tribes ofErzya and Moksha are separate ethnic entities, however, and retain their
respective identities and languages (Vaba 1997). The Mari speak three diverse dialects,
which are at times considered to be their own languages (Wojci 2002). The Mari have their
own republic, Mari-El, in Russia, although only about half of the over 500,000 Maris live in
their own republic. Despite the present minority status in their own republic, the Mari
population is continuously increasing (Vaba 1997).
Dividing further into sub-groupings, the North Finnic classification contains the
Saamic and Balto-Finnic groups. The indigenous Saami people of northern Europe are the
speakers of the Saamic languages. Saamiland, or Sapmi, lies in the political units ofNorway,
Sweden, Finland and Russia. Due to having a large geographic domain and living in the
spheres of other cultural influences for thousands of years, a "linguistic continuum" (Wojci
2002) often Saami languages has ultimately emerged (Somby 2001). Ofthe Southern, Ume,
Pite, Lule, Northern, Inari, Skolt, Akkala, Kildin and Ter languages, only six boast written
forms. Northern Saami is the largest contingent, encompassing seventy-five percent of all
Saamic speakers. Identity uncertainty is a leading factor in the ambiguity of the Saami
population counts, thus, according to different sources, all of the Saami number between
35,000 and 101,000today (Morottaja 2002).
The Balto-Finnic languages, the last sub-grouping of the Uralic languages, are the
focus of this study. Despite these seven languages' clear mutual relatedness, Estonian,
Finnish, Ingrian, Karelian, Livonian, Veps and Vote each hold a unique status today due to
their individual and intricate histories. Occasionally, an eighth language, Lude, is introduced
as a member of the Balto-Finnic linguistic group. It is sometimes considered a russified
transitional language lying geographically and linguistically between the Olonets Karelian
dialect and the Veps language (Virtaranta 1983: 214) or the linguistic result of karelianized
Veps (Vuorela 1964:133). Ludes identify themselves as Karelians (Viitso 1998a:96) and for
the purpose ofthis investigation, Lude will be considered adialect of Karelian.
Individual events affecting the situations of these related languages began long ago
with various political influences. The speakers .of Estonian and Livonian were drawn into the
Germanic influences ofthe Teutonic knights from approximately 1200 to well into the 1500s,
while the Finnish speakers fell under the influential sphere of the Kingdom of Sweden and
the Karelians, Veps, Ingrians, and Votes were pulled into the dominion of Novgorod and the
Byzantine Orthodox church by the 1000s (Huovinen 1983 and Anhava 1998:42). By the
1400s many of these groups became drawn into the realm of Russian influence and today
10
many Estonian and Finnish speakers clearly reflect influences from the western cultural
sphere (Pugh 1995:15).
. The Balto-Finnic nations of Finland and Estonia govern their own independent
sovereignties today; the remainder of the Balto-Finnic nations lies predominantly within
Russian or Latvian terrain, although Balto-Finnic groups live also in Sweden and Norway.
Thus, their languages remain as, "languages of bilingual minorities in their traditional
territories" (Viitso 1998a:96). Refer to Figure 3 for complete demographic statistics of the
Balto-Finnics.
Balto-Finnic Language
Size ofEthnic Group Estimated Number ofSpeakers
1. FINNISH
Finland (1999)
Sweden (1992)
Estonia (1989)
Russia (1989)
2. ESTONIAN
Estonia (1989)
Russia (1989)
Finland (1999)
3. KARELIAN (1989)
Dvina
Olonets
Lude
ca. 5,518,115
5.100.000
5.000,000
4,788,497
11,407
16,622
67,359
n/a
n/a
963,281
n/a
953.032
60.363
n/a
27,001
10,024
130,989
ca. 69,424 (53%)
ca. 52,396 (40%)
ca. 9.169(7%)
5,155
23,274
62,542
a/a
a'a
n/a
4. VEPS (1989)
12.501
6,335
5. INGRIAN (1989)
ca. 820
300
6. LIVONIAN
n/a
<20
7. VOTE
n/a
<20
Figure 4. Above is ademographic distribution of Balto-Finnic speakers. Dvina, Olonets and Lude are dialects ofthe
Karelian language. Adapted from Suihkonen 2002.
The Karelians, Veps, Ingrians and Votes traditionally inhabit regions within Russia.
Resulting from being the "most widespread" of the Balto-Finnic languages (Crystal
11
1992:304), Karelian features 4 diverse dialects (Viitso 1998a:99). The Karelians comprise
approximately 11.1% of the population of the Republic of Karelia in Russia today
(Fernandez 1996) and Hannes Silvo estimates there to be even over twelve million ethnic
Karelians or Karelian descendents worldwide (1996:11). To the east of the Karelians dwell
the Veps, who occupy the easternmost territories of the Balto-Finnic speakers. (Vuorela
1964:133).
The Ingrians and Votes populate an area referred to as Ingria, which extends from the
middle of the Karelian Isthmus to the city of Narva, Estonia. Today in Ingria there exists an
amalgamation ofdifferent peoples, but in the St. Petersburg region, the Balto-Finnic peoples
(defined as indigenous or descendants ofmigrants since the 1600s and 1700s) still make up a
solid ten percent of the population (Fishman et al. 1996:74). Nevertheless, the Ingrian and
Vote languages both claim "very few speakers" (Crystal 1992:304) and in 1989 the youngest
speaker ofVote was already 59 year old (Fernandez 1996). To avoid ambiguity, it must be
noted that the term Ingrian shall, for the purpose of this investigation, refer to the native
populations of Ingria and Ingrian-Finn shall refer to the subsequent Finnish migrants that
settled in Ingria.
The seventh member of Balto-Finnic group is the Livonians, who reside in coastal
region ofKurzeme in Latvia, although their numbers, too, place them in Crystal's "very few
speakers" category (Crystal 1992:304).
2.2 Samoyed Languages
The other branch of the Uralic language family is comprised of the Samoyeds who
number, in total, less than 30,000 today in Siberia and mostly obtain their source of revenue
via reindeer hunting and husbandry (Crystal 1992:304). The Samoyed people were first
12
mentioned in Nestor's Chronicles in A.D. 1113 (Ruhlen 1991:65). Genetically, however,
Samoyeds are mongoloids, while their Finno-Ugric counterparts are caucasoids. According
to linguist Ago Kunnap, they are likely, "former Mongoloid speakers of Paleosiberian
languages who have adopted the Uralic languages form," (2000:8).
Like the Finno-Ugric branch of the Uralic language family, the Samoyed language
sub-grouping further divides itself into two additional sub-groupings. In the North Samoyed
branch, there are about 25,000 Nenets speakers and a few hundred speakers ofeach ofthe
Enets and Nganasan languages and in the South Samoyed branch the Selkup language has
approximately 3,000 speakers (Crystal 1992:304). Other former Samoyed speaking groups
have made the move to complete assimilation into the Turkic speaking populaces of Siberia
over the last century (Wojci 2002).
The Samoyed peoples reside entirely within Siberian Russian territory. The Nenets
live in the Nenets Autonomous Area, Yamalo Nenets Autonomous Area, Taymyr
Autonomous Area and the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Area, while the Enets inhabit the
Taymyr Autonomous Area exclusively. The Nganasan are found in the Taymyr Autonomous
Area and the Krasnoyarsk Territory and the Selkup dwell in the Khanty-Mansiysk
Autonomous Area and the Tomsk Region (Suihkonen 2002:165).
13
3. The Nature of Balto-Finnic Languages
What constitutes a Balto-Finnic language as a separate language? Judging from their
relative mutual comprehension, it seems almost more sensible to treat the Balto-Finnic
languages as a continuum of one single language, rather than seven separate ones. The
answer, however, lies in the complexity and dynamism of a plethora of factors including
history, contact, social discord, influence of dominating social groups, collectivized shared
values and a unique cultural and self-identity. Each language (and therefore cultural) group
equates best with its own history of accounts among its own people and traditions and its
own history ofinteractions with other social groups. To further obscure the answer, one look
at the ancestry of the present-day seven Balto-Finnic languages will reveal peculiar facts,
distinguishing each as arriving to their present state in avery distinct and discrete manner.
To exemplify the individuality ofeach language, here are a few instances ofhistorical
happenings. The Estonian language came to be through the merging of the diverse North
Estonian and South Estonian dialects, united in the mid-1800s, despite each already
functioning as its own literary language for three hundred years (Virtaranta 1983:1999,
Anhava 1998:42). Incidentally, there is a small uprising in southwest Estonia today, calling
for the recognition ofthe Vorukiil language, remnants ofthe scrapped South Estonian, since
the merge heavily favored the North Estonian language (Fernandez 1996). Textbooks and
fiction alike have been published recently in Vorukiil (Anhava 1998:43). The Finnish
language is also a fused language, combining the main Hame, Savo and southwest Finnic
dialects in the mid-1500s, when Mikael Agricola sought to make Finnish a literary language
for the first time (Tarkianen 1958). Dialects, however, still prevail in spoken Finnish and
recently regional dialects have been used increasingly in publications and television
14
broadcasts (Palander 2001:200). In the opposite manner, Vote emerged from a northeast
Estonian dialect that "broke loose" and developed in its own direction, under the auspices
and influence of the Orthodox Church, rather than the Estonian Lutheran Church (Lehto
1996:13).
15
4. Survey of Territorial Expanses
As noted before, the sheer geographical breadth of the Uralic speakers is vast,
although it must be duly said that these territories are not entirely regions of homogeneity.
Speakers of other language groups lie scattered in and among the Uralic speakers, but some
concentrated regions of these speakers do arise, mostly in areas where the said language
holds an official status. Several factors have played key roles in the development of the
spatial territory over time. Contact, conflict, language acquisition and loss, migration and
bilingualism are just a few of some of the more important causes.
The Uralic branch of Balto-Finnic languages is not exempt from this tendency; it
beautifully portrays how a fractured linguistic region results from the assignment of
subordinate statuses to languages by dominating political units. Nonetheless, each general
local region inhabited by the Balto-Finns exhibits some amount of cultural and territorial
centrality in spite of domineering rulers, which will be demonstrated below.
4.1 Theory of Origins
Linguists still argue about the geographic origins of the Uralic language family and
contrasting research publications suggest that the field is still plagued by linguistic, genetic
and archaeological discrepancies (not to mention historical taboos regarding European-Asian
relations), but several main theories still prevail. Presently, a new school of Uralic linguists
is just beginning to depart from the traditional Uralist theory and its rigid family tree
arrangement. A few other historical theories are also examined in the following section.
16
4.1.1 Uralist Theory
The Uralic Theory stems from structured genetic classification, or rather the
placement of all pertinent member languages into sub-arrangements in the form of a schema
illustrating the family's linguistic splits, much resembling the branches of a tree (Ruhlen
1991:4). The theory is so named as its member languages appear on both sides of the Ural
Mountains (Anttila 1989:300). Once established by the early Finno-Ugric explorers, keen on
expanding the classification system, this origin theory became a trend of the times. Since its
establishment, the "arborealism" (Ktinnap 1998:9) has been continuously perpetuated by
subsequent linguists in the field and has essentially been carved into stone as the factual
starting point of the present day languages, leaving very little room for the acceptance of
opposing theories. Marcantonio argues even that early family trees became "law" despite
their "unproven hypotheses"to back the languages' branchlike relationships (2002:43).
The meat and potatoes of the Uralic Theory lie in the hypothetical existence of proto-
languages. To illustrate this justifying the Uralic Theory, for example, there calls for the
need of one common Proto-Balto-Finnic language that was spoken by all prior to the
linguistic separation of the seven Balto-Finnic languages. The Proto-Uralic language, the
supposed original language of the ancestors of all the Uralic speakers today, probably
originated between six to eight thousand years ago in the Ural Mountains (Crystal 1992:304,
Marcantonio 2002:3), although Kunnap claims an arbitrary "no sooner than 8,000 and not
later than 4,000 years ago" (2000:8). For the Finns, especially, this is a tolerable theory, as
their roots are placed in the Urals, denying any relations with neighboring Scandinavians or
Slavs (Marcantonio 2002:54).
17
Following the Proto-Uralic language, a chain of successive proto-languages would
have emerged at the divergence of the varying branches of the Uralic language family. Still,
there is much speculation about dates and the content of the resulting proto-languages.
Discrepancies among linguists can be observed in Alo Raun's Essays in Finno-Ugric and
Finnic Linguistics (1971). In time, the Balto-Finns' common proto language emerged, as
Pugh contends that the Balto-Finns arrived to the Baltic region already in the third
millennium BC or even earlier (Pugh 1999:15) and Hakkinen indicates that the oldest ProtoGermanic loan words entered the Proto-Balto-Finnic language during the Bronze Age, so this
was the latest timeframe that the Proto-Balto-Finnic tribes may have arrived to the Baltic
region (1996:90). Figure 4 shows a diagram of the diverging Proto Balto-Finnic according to
the Uralist Theory.
Stammbaum Model: Main Historical Groupings of Fennic
Proto-Finnic
J
1
Neva
I
Maa
I
Livonian
South Estonian
North Estonian
'
North Finnic
1
Chude
I
West Ladoga
'
1
East Ladoga
Figure 5. Inthis figure, "Proto-Finnic" refers to "Proto-Balto-Finnic". Adapted from Viitso (1998:101)
4.1.2 Challenging the Uralist Theory
Considering the vast territorial coverage of the Uralic languages, one must ponder the
logic in assuming one proto-language for all of the resulting languages. To counteract the
aged Uralist Theory, linguists such as Rein Taagepera and Kalevi Wiik advocate their
18
budding sprachbund or lingua franca type theories that address these issues in the world of
Uralistics.
The German word Sprachbund refers to a "language union" (Kunnap 2002:23), or a
linguistic association or convergence, where two overlapping or adjacent languages meet,
influencing each other reciprocally to develop mutual "phonetics, phonological systems,
similar grammars..." (Anttila 1989:172). Accordingly, the sprachbund would represent a
connection of congruently developing neighbor languages and, thus, negate the existence of
one Proto-Uralic language altogether. Instead, this phenomenon would produce a "chain" of
original homelands across Eurasia rather than one 'cradle of civilization'. After a period of
harmonious development, the sprachbunds would have "dispersed" to form individual
languages, suggesting relatively few major migrations in northern Europe (Kunnap 2002:23).
Theoretical sprachbund diagrams may be viewed in Figures 5 and 6.
19
Finno-Saamic
Mordvin
Mari
Permic
Mansi
Hanti
Hungarian
Finno-Volgaic Sprachbund
Volga-Ugric Sprachbund
Paleo-
Paleo-
Paleo-
Volgaic
Hungaric
Hantic
Figure 6. Development of the modern Uralic languages via sprachbunds. From Taagepera in Kunnap (2002:19).
Proto-Uralic Period: Dispersal of the Sprachbund
Paleosiberian
Languages
Balto-Finnic
Languages
Mordvin
Srnttk
Border
Figure 7. Dispersal of the Eurasian sprachbunds. Adapted from from Pusztay in Kunnap (2002:19).
Similarly, as maintained by Uralic linguists in this school of thought, this sprachbund
sequence would have stretched far into Europe, providing as the lingua franca across some
4,000 kilometers for the sparse yet "geographically contiguous" populations of northern
20
Europe (Marcantonio 2002:66) some several millennia ago. Hence, this sprachbund-type
Proto-Uralic system and its speakers would have, "populated the land that was laid bare
along the periglacial line after the Ice Age, from the Rhine and eastward (eventually also
Scandinavia)," (Elert 2002:57).
Kalevi Wiik connects the historical situation to the
contemporary one, assuming there to be three linguistic areas in Europe at that time: Basque
in western Europe, Finno-Ugric in the north and Indo-European in the southeast. As the
Indo-European speakers moved northwards and the former non-Indo-European hunters and
gatherers abandoned their original languages for a new Indo-European one, an impression of
their original language (Finno-Ugric or Basque) remained in the resulting dialect as a
substratum. The consequential "Finno-Ugric contaminated language" developed into the
Proto-Balto-Slavic language (Wiik 2002:285-288, Kunnap 2002:53).
More accurately,
linguists of this school of thought would argue that the Balto-Finnic speakers have always
been located where they presently reside.
4.1.3 Other Theories
Other subordinate theories of origin exist and cannot be denied, but they are not
upheld today in the scientific world. Some of the following theories fit the mold of these
inferior origins. In 1679, Olof Rudbeck the Elder published "evidence" that the Swedish
empire (then including much of the Balto-Finnic speakers' homeland territories) belonged to
the old Atlantis culture and Daniel Juslenius, in 1700, proclaimed Finland to be the "cradle of
education and science" as Finns supposedly swarmed to Finland after the Biblical floods
(Oinas 1985:10).
An additional array of explicative thoughts on the origins of Finns,
compiled by Milton Nunez, can be found in Figure 7.
21
Source of the Origin
1. Bible (Noah's Model)
2. Bible (Linguists'/Moses' Model)
3. Native People
4. EU - Brussels
Dates
1500 -1800
1800 -1970
1970 -1990
1990s
Key Thought
Magog's Decendents
Wandering Westwards (chosen people, promised land)
Always been there
They are Europeans from central Europe
Figure 8. Theories on the origin of Finns popular throughout history. Adapted from Nuftez 1998:151.
4.2 Formation of Political Boundaries and Policy
Throughout time, politics have had the upper hand in determining the geographic
extents to which the Balto-Finnic peoples were permitted to inhabit. Governments have not
historically made the efforts to accommodate the interests of all the residents over whom they
preside and have, therefore, created significant adjustments to the Balto-Finnic settlement
patterns, which most likely would not have occurred in their natural course of existence
without the influence of political actions. Powerful assimilation tactics, peace treaties and
the conquests of geopolitically significant lands have left lasting marks on the welfare and
spatial arrangements of the Balto-Finns.
Political campaigns, carried out chiefly under Soviet reigns, have led to enormous
spatial shifts in the settlement patterns of the Balto-Finns. Relocation policies under the
Soviet regime expulsed many Livonians to the USSR, which severely decreased the number
of Livonians in their traditional territory (Viitso 1998a:96). Furthermore, many Estonians
dispersed from their native homelands to seek refuge in Russia, Sweden, Canada, the United
States and Australia in effort to escape the Nazi and/or Soviet forces during World War II
(Viitso 1998: 115). Displaced Balto-Finns, now outside their traditional territories, were
subjected to accelerated assimilation processes into the dominant culture.
Those not
22
deported and remained in the homeland were the subjects of incorporation into the parent
Russian culture.
Apart from direct political campaigns causing direct adverse effects on the BaltoFinnic speakers, several of the Balto-Finnic groups today are positioned haphazardously
between two political units, most notably the Karelians and the Setukaiset. These disparate
positions hinder unity and make it difficult for these groups to maintain harmony between
their divisions, while endeavoring to continually promote their language under the thwarting
external governmental administrations.
The Karelians have a long history of political partitioning by outside forces powers.
From its position in the early Novogorodian sphere, ancient Karelia was first split into
Swedish and Russian realms, isolating the eastern Karelians from neighboring Finns with the
Treaty of Pahkinasaari in 1323. These portions were later reunited under Swedish rule in
1617 with the Treaty of Stolbova (Silvo 1996:11). Afterwards, ancient Karelia was torn
apart, governed partially by Finland and partially by Russia and the aftermath of World War
II further carved up the original homelands of the Karelians. Today, only the westernmost
section of Karelia lies in Finland and the rest in the Russian Federation, mostly in the
Republic of Karelia. Aalto best sums up the Karelian discord and its resonating effects with
the following quote: "Karjalaa on kaulittu edestakaisin, edestakaisin kuin Karjalanpiirakka,"
(2003:6) [tr. Karelia has been rolled back and forth, back and forth like in the making of the
traditional Karelian rice pie].
The Setukaiset of southeast Estonia have been sliced into two groups under the
authority of the Russian government. After Estonia gained independence again in 1991,
Russia ceased to recognize old Estonian boundaries, accepting only the Soviet quasi-
23
boundary, which permitted the Russian state to acquire additional territory than it previously
had under the original border. Estonia today fails to acknowledge the Russian occupation of
Petserimaa in the Seto region in southern Estonia. The Setukaiset, native to this region, feel
the repercussions in tedious border-crossings, difficulties experienced in visiting relatives
and friends and the accelerated assimilation processes in Russian Seto (Saarinen and
Suhonen 1995:168, Hagu 1995:169-181, Fernandez 1996).
The position of the Veps is a separate story. The Veps are not divided between
political units, but rather they are geographically disconnected, residing in two separate
regions. In 1989 the Veps strove to unite the regions in advocacy for self-administration, but
opposition in the St. Petersburg region annulled any inclinations toward autonomy (Viitso
1998a:100).
4.3 Contemporary Balto-Finnic Society
In the following segment, the present-day Balto-Finnic groups' site and situation shall
be thoroughly examined in a linguistic sense.
4.3.1 Present Expanse
Figure 8 reflects a fairly general depiction of today's distribution of the Balto-Finns.
Gathering from the map, these groups have clearly remained close to the ancestral homelands
in a relatively small geographic area, proximate to the northeast Baltic Sea.
24
vatjA ja inkeroinen
-r-i
viro eli
-ti eessti
•»':?/:"
liivi
Figure 9. Map of Balto-Finnic territories today(Chyeriyavskaya 1997:12)
4.3.2 Past and Present Languages and Dialects
Today, the Estonian, Finnish, Ingrian, Karelian, Livonian, Veps and Vote languages
are survivors of the enduring rigors of outside oppression by greater political units.
Unsurprisingly, each language has its own storyto tell and that is echoed in the numbers of
speakers left today. Finnish, the most prevalent Balto-Finnic tongue boasts over five million
speakers, while the native Livonian and Vote speakers have been reduced practically to relics
of the past, each having less than twenty native speakers remaining.
25
Despite the relatively small number of speakers of Balto-Finnic languages on a
whole, dialectal differences within the languages abound. Finnish possesses a multitude of
dialects reflecting its compound composition. Most curiously, Finnish may be broken down
into eastern and western dialects; the eastern dialects most closely resemble Karelian, while
the western dialects have more of an affinity to the Estonian language (Anhava 1998:43).
Outside of Finland, Finnish is natively spoken in Sweden, Norway, Russia and
Estonia. In the Tornio River Valley of the Norbotten province in Sweden, Meankielilaiset
speak a derivative of Finnish. Meankielilaiset have recently won recognition in Sweden as
the "original native population as opposed to being a national minority" (Eurolang 2003).
The Kvens are a Finnish-speaking group living in northern Norway today. Heavy migrations
in the seventeenth century led the Kvens to their present territory in the Finnmark and
Troms0 provinces (Saressalo 2002:4). Viitanen asserts that the Kven predecessors inhabited
the regions in by the Gulf of Bothnia already in the ninth century before migrating north
(1917:19). Ingrian-Finnish is spoken in the Ingrian region of Russia and other small pockets
of Finnish are spoken today in Estonia and in the Republic of Karelia in Russia (Lehto
1996:15, Palander 2001:292).
Karelian, a widely spread Balto-Finnic language exhibits four diverse dialects, as
mentioned before. Due to its enormous territorial span, the northern dialect, present mostly
in the Republic of Karelia, the southern dialect (observed mostly in the outlying language
oasis regions such as Tver, Tihvina, Vessi, Valdai, Tolmacc), the Olonets dialect and the
Lude dialects have developed in separate directions (Virtaranta 1983:217-222).
Such
dialectal disparity has led to extreme difficulty in attempts to unify the language under one
written alphabet (Pugh 1999:20).
26
The Veps are separated into three separate dialectal groups as well. The northernmost
Onega Veps situated on the shores of Lake Onega, the Oyat (or Middle) Veps located upon
the Oyat tributary to the Svir River and the Southern Veps, south of the Oyat Veps. The
three groups are separated geographically, thus facilitating differences in their parlance.
Another group of Veps, the Isayev Veps were completely Russified already in the late 1800s
(Vuorela 1964:133).
The Ingrians, rather linguistically closely related to the Karelians (Palander
2001:291), possess five dialects (Viitso 1998a:99) and the Votes live today mainly in the
village of Vaipooli and retain east and west dialects in northwest Ingria (Viitso 1993:64,
Viitso 1998a:98). Estonian, as previously mentioned, is comprised of two dissimilar dialects,
whose southern dialect is pressing for linguistic rights as its own distinct language. The
Setukaiset folklore of southeast Estonia is said to be closer to that of the Ingrians and Votes
(Oinas 1985:25) and Saarinen and Suhonen go as far to question whether the Setukaiset are
the descendents of a different Balto-Finnic tribe (1995:168). Estonians also live in Russia, a
grand part of whom live in the disputed territory of Seto. Seto is traditionally home to
Estonians and part of Estonia, but since Estonia's occupation by the Soviet Union, Russia
now claims itself proprietor of Seto, imposing Russian law on the Estonian-speaking
residents of Seto (Fernandez 1996).
The customary homeland of the Livonians, with their three dialects, has been reduced
to the occupation of twelve fishing hamlets on the Baltic coast of Latvia (Viitso 1998a:98,
Virtaranta 1983:181). Centuries ago, Livonians occupied both the eastern side of the Kolka
Horn, as well as the northeastern coast of present-day Latvia and southern Estonia. This is
noticed in the toponymy that yields Livonian names in most of Kurzeme (Vuorela 1964:206).
27
The downfall of the Livonians began with the establishment of Riga in 1202 by the Germans
(Viitso 1993:61), expediting the extinction of the eastern Livonians, who vanished sometime
during the last century (Anhava 1998:43).
Apart from the dialects spoken today, recent events have led to the demise of other
Balto-Finnic derivatives spoken respectably for centuries. Krevine, a dialect of Vote was
spoken for some four hundred years near the city of Bauska in southern Latvia as a result of
the Teutonic Knights' taking of Vote prisoners in the years 1444 to 1447 (Vuorela 1964:145,
Viitso 1998a:98). Enclaves of Estonian-speakers were found well into the twentieth century
in the Latvian towns of Ludza, Ilzene, Zeltinu and Lejasciems and in Russian Kraasna due to
resettlement movements in the 1600s (Viitso 1998:115, Kallas 1894:3, Kallas 1903:3,
Virtaranta 1983:203-207). Disconcerted Finns from the Savo region of Finland migrated in
droves to the Vermland region of Sweden on the Norwegian border in the latter half of the
1500s. These Vermlanti Finns, or Forest Finns, lived, preserving their own language and
culture into the twentieth century (Lahteenmaki 2002:98-99, Westiing 1954:7-8). Some of
these Forest Finns later journeyed to the New World, settling in one of the earliest European
colonies in America, New Sweden, on the Delaware River in the 1600s (Kero 1990). A more
recent Balto-Finnic group to transfer outside the homeland was the Setukaiset, a group of
southern Estonians from the Seto region. Various assemblages of Setukaiset left the Seto
region between the years of 1890 and 1914 to found an Estonian settlement in an area of
Siberia east of Krasnojarsk (Piho 1995:200).
4.3.3 Language Statuses
At present, Estonian and Finnish are the only two Balto-Finnic languages that serve
as official languages of a country. Both of these nations, however, happen to also govern
28
themselves in an independent sovereign republic, Estonia and Finland, respectively.
Accordingly, this elevated linguistic position promotes a solid and secure future for these two
languages and their speakers.
On the other hand, the remaining Balto-Finnic languages are reduced to minority
statuses under the dominions of alien governments.
Long periods of harsh assimilation
policies have russified and latvianized those groups whose indigenous lands are occupied by
"foreign" governments (Suihkonen 2002:167).
Similar procedures have been practiced in
Sweden and Norway upon the Meankielilaiset and the Kvens (Savolainen 2001). A push to
uphold Karelian as a co-official language next to Russian in the Republic of Karelia has not
resulted in triumph yet (Kleerova 2001, Zlobin 2001).
29
5. Spatial Diffusion and Consolidation
As other groups of people of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds began to
appear in the indigenous homelands of the Balto-Finns, it became inevitable that contact and
conflict would arise between the various adjacent social groups.
In general, contact is
perceived as a positive occurrence, the harbinger of new ideas that provides an environment
conducive for mutual exchanges of knowledge and ideologies.
Conversely, conflict
generally signifies bellicose force exerted over the weaker tribe, resulting in such
consequences as obligatory land cessions, forced assimilations and the marginalization of
minorities.
5.1 Contact with Indo-European Languages
On nearly all sides, speakers of Indo-European languages surround the Balto-Finnic
speakers: Slavs to the east, Germanics to the west and Baits to the south. Only the Saami, the
northern neighbors, share a similar linguistic background. Such a spatial situation alludes to
a nearly predestined series of contact and conflict with the neighbors.
One form of linguistic contact occurs in regions of peaceful plurality. This incidence
is observed in the region of Ingria, southwest of St. Petersburg and to the east of Estonia. It
is in this region—originally inhabited by Ingrians and Votes—that Ingrians, Votes, Russians,
Ingrian-Finns and other ethnicities have lived side-by-side for centuries (Lehto 1996:13). In
this manner, the loaning of words from one language to another is quite evident in the
number of Russian-originating words found in the lexicon of the Ingrian and Vote languages
today and its possible influence in case endings in Ingrian-Finnish (Palander 2001:296).
Also, the close proximity of the Ingrians and Votes has played a reciprocal role of borrowing
and lending terminology with each other throughout time. Votes have adapted the term izora
30
to refer to themselves, whereas the word has roots in the Ingrian word for 'Ingrian' (Palander
2001:291).
Great migrations on behalf of the Balto-Finns have led also to contact situations with
new social groups. This is true in the case of the Meankielilaiset and Kvens, whereas their
Finnish language is greatly influenced by Saami languages as well as by Swedish and
Norwegian, respectively (Savolainen 2001). The southern Karelians that settled in isolated
areas that produce linguistic oases of Balto-Finnic language among the sea of Indo-European
speakers have experienced greater effects from their surrounding Russian atmosphere,
detached from the rest of the Balto-Finnic community, than have the Karelians who have
stayed on their customary home soils (Virtaranta 1983:218-222).
The Baltic region has been the crux of Germanic, Baltic, Slavic and Balto-Finnic
contact for centuries. Linguistic patterns from all the languages in contact have contributed
to a mass exchange of forms, ideas and structures to enrich the original language. The Balto-
Finnic languages have adopted the use of perfect and pluperfect tenses from the Germanicspeakers (Salminen 1993:30) and Finnish adapted the Swedish alphabet to fit its own sounds
(Tarkianen 1958). This exchange, though, may be best seen in the Balto-Finnic lexicon. The
following loans, given in their Finnish form, have been adapted to many of the Balto-Finnic
languages (Raun 1971:74-82, Hakkinen 1996:153-163):
•
From Germanic languages: hame (skirt), kiusata (to torment), tauti (sickness)
•
From Slavic languages: liina (flax), vapaa (free), ies (yoke)
•
From Baltic languages: harmaa (gray), vuohi (goat), silta (bridge)
Many of the foreign borrowings likely passed from one Balto-Finnic language or dialect to
the next after one group took on the original loan (Raun 1971:73). In the opposite context,
31
the Balto-Finnic languages have served as the source for linguistic phenomena occurring in
Indo-European languages, such as the following:
•
Igaunija means 'Estonia' in Latvian; the Latvians borrowed this term from the BaltoFinns, as ugandi and ugala referred to an ancient administrative region in southern
Estonia. Lithuanian, Latvian's closest linguistic relative, unaffected by Balto-Finnic
contact, refers to Estonia as Estija (Griinthal 1997:205). Latvian, in general, tends to
differ from its Baltic counterpart, Lithuanian, due to its intense contact with the
Balto-Finns (Anhava 1998:43).
• Russian preserves the Balto-Finnic hydrologic toponymy of the rivers Neva, Svir and
Vuoksi, as well as Lake Ladoga (Saksa 1996:33)
•
Also, Russians refer to Peipsi Jarv, the lake partially serving as the international
border of Estonia and Russia, as HydcKoe 03epo (Chudskoe Ozero), reflecting a name
given to an arbitrary group of Balto-Finns, the Chudes (Vuorela 1964:146). It is
possible that the nomenclature implies the Varsinaistsuudit, or the 'proper Chudes', a
group ofrussified Balto-Finns that lived east of Chudskoe Ozero (Hagu 1995:169).
Another piece of contact evidence comes to light with the impressions of substrata inmodern
languages. It is said that northern Russian dialects possess an undeniable Balto-Finnic
substratum in its contemporary structure (Pugh 1999:23).
Contact acts as one of the main vehicles of language distribution via dissemination
and fusion of ideas. The Balto-Finns have experienced contact from all sides and similar
experiences, as a group, have assisted them to strengthen their position as languages distinct
from those of their neighbors'. While each language has experienced its own set of contacts
and effects from these contacts- Veps has felt greater influences from Russian, while
32
Estonian has felt more Germanic effects, Latvian Baltic effects and Finnish Scandinavian
influences— these individual circumstances help to build the character of each separate and
distinct language. As a group of languages, however, it must be noted, that outside contacts
have helped to strengthen and emphasize the value and utility of these languages within each
Balto-Finnic culture, for they have not become extinct in the shadows of these larger giants
of languages.
Incidentally, a specimen of Finnish in contact with English in the United States has
evolved into 'Finglish' where Finns have migrated out of their lingual heartland. Beginning
in the middle of the nineteenth century, Finnish immigrants found themselves in unfamiliar
environs amidst an equally exotic haze of the English language (Sahlman 1949:14).
Cohesive Finnish enclaves formed and adapted the English words for new objects and
concepts, tweaking their pronunciations to fit their mouths and applying the rules of Finnish
grammar to their neologisms (Hellstrom 1976:85-86, Hellstrom 1979:65).
5.2 Conflict
Just as the Balto-Finns have engaged in peaceful and advantageous exchanges with
their neighbors, conflict has also erupted from time to time. In spite of the Balto-Finns
taking a usually neutral stance against the invaders of their conventional native soils, they
have felt the brunt the hardest from times of controversy with their neighbors. Conflict may
be seen in the forms of territorial disputes, forced assimilations and minority statuses.
Nevertheless, conflict acts as a medium of cohesion for all the survivors of unfavorable
governmental policies.
Territorial conflict at its greatest may be re-examined in the cases of the Karelians
and Setukaiset, whereas their indigenous territories are the objects of dispute between several
33
outside states. But, this phenomenon occurs everyday outside the borders of Finland and
Estonia where the Balto-Finns' indigenous territories are occupied by a single foreign
government. In such instances, the politically superior groups have tendencies to marginalize
the Balto-Finns.
In territorial conquests by external groups, Balto-Finns have been deported under
common Soviet policyto forcefully expel national minorities. In other situations, rulers have
encouraged migrants from the non-indigenous population to saturate minorities' territories in
order to neutralize the area and help to diffuse and weaken the pre-existing nation's cohesion
(Suihkonen 2002:167). Such is the case in Karelia, where the influx of Russians to the
Republic of Karelia to work in the forestry industry has made it so that many Karelians have
"disappeared into the foreign population" (Marianova 1993:53). Other foreign strategies
have been implemented that have greatly inhibited the daily lifestyle of the Balto-Finns, as in
the case of the Livonians, whose suffering under Soviet-style collectivized farming
accelerated the impoverishing of the Livonians after a prolonged period of subordination
beneath German knights (Anhava 1998:43).
Peace treaties carry an ambiguous name. In the course of history, treaties signed with
the intention of peace have not only created political divides, such as the case in Karelia and
Seto, but they have also served as the channel to relocate the Balto-Finns from their original
territories. The signing of the Treaty of Stolbova in 1617 ceded Ingria to the Swedes and
forced many of the Votes and Ingrians in this region to leave or flee on their own accord on
account of religious discord between the Lutheran and Orthodox Churces (Palander
2001:292, Lehto 1996:15). Later, Peter the Great's campaigns against the Swedish Empire
saw many Karelians escape from their homeland and head to regions further south to evade
34
the perils of confrontation. These movements created the isolated ethno-linguistic islands
seen today in Tver, Valdai and Djorza (Pugh 1999:16).
Once again, it becomes evident that the survivors of such instances of conflict come
out with a reinforced sense of identity, continuing to live the traditions of their forefathers
and resisting full assimilation into the majority populations. Conflict, over time, has also
evoked in the Balto-Finns a greater trend of evacuation from the motherland.
35
6. Mapping of Balto-Finnic Languages
To better exemplify the aforementioned events, a visual presentation consisting of a
series of Balto-Finnic settlement maps from the past to the present has been prepared. The
importance of mapping this language group's settlement patterns is twofold; not only does it
enhance the visualization of the consequences of contact and conflict, but it also provides the
opportunity to examine configurations of the Balto-Finnic peoples as a single linguistic
group, rather than smaller segregated nations. Studying the group in its entirety allows for
the tracing of the evolution of their regional territory with the development of the language
group through space and over time.
6.1 Techniques
From a compilation of published maps that generally specialize in one Balto-Finnic
group (see Figure 9), necessary locational information was extracted to assemble the
settlement maps. The computer program ESRI ArcMap then served to create a base map of
the general region inhabited by the Balto-Finns. Once the base map task was accomplished,
complete with hydrological features to better accustom the audience with geographic
phenomena, data accumulated from a blend of published maps textual resources was utilized
to integrate settlement information for the formulation of a succession of eight maps
featuring the following approximate dates: 1100s, 1500s, 1700s, 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950 and
1990 to the present. These dates have been separated as such due to the data offered by the
various maps in the collection.
As already noted in Section 4, it is extremely difficult, if not utterly impossible, to
pinpoint a genesis of the Balto-Finnic languages. To begin the map series in the "beginning"
would be imprudent, therefore the series commences in the twelfth century, as there is at this
36
point enough adequate existing data to assume an outline of the dwelling patterns. Figure 10
shows one interpretation of the assumed territorial expanse of the proto-Balto Finns. (The
map created for the twelfth century in the map series make use of the following sources:
Kirkinen, Lehto, Niilo, Palander, Ryyppo, Viitso, Vuorela.)
37
Figure 10. Examples of maps utilized to create the Balto-Finnic settlement map series. From left to right: (Top) Veps
homelands in 1967; Ingria and its inhabitants of Ingrians, Votes and Ingrian Finns the mid 1800s; (Bottom) Migrations to
northern Finland, 1543-1740 (Virtaranta 1967:110, Palander 2001:293, Niemi 1978:25).
38
\s
*- *r„a#
:»:•:•:•:•:•:•:
::-:v;-:v.-.-j'.-*.. ~..
i^S
ioiSKanta$ubmi'^
^ft#^::Vft:::::;::i::^:i
r^
Figure 11. Theoretic expanse of proto-Balto-Finnic tribes, date unknown (Pohjoiskantasuomi - North proto-Balto-Finnish,
Etelakantasuomi - South proto-Balto-Finnish, Itakantasuomi - East proto-Balto-Finnish, Kantalappalaiset refer to the
Saami) (Itkonen 1984).
A pure lack of written records, especially from earlier time periods before the BaltoFinns acquired written languages and especially for the smaller groups, proves to be
problematic in creating accurate representations of the actual settlement arrangements. Such
is not uncommon when studying the geography of language. Another serious flaw afflicting
the map series is its inability to reflect population densities. From this map series, one cannot
conclude that Karelians only make up 11.1% of the demographic composition of the area
occupied by the Republic of Karelia in Russia. Indeed, given the technology of modern-day
life, creating maps to replicate population densities is not terribly challenging, however, it is
the deficiency of appropriate data that impedes the capability to illustrate it here. Many of
the smaller tribes, particularly, lack such data. These maps also do not account for other nonBalto-Finnic inhabitants dwelling within Balto-Finnic territory, nor do they account for
recent migrations outside traditional territories to the northern United States, Canada and
39
Australia or the more recent migrations to retirement communities in southern Spain and
Florida.
One further difficulty encountered while siphoning data to produce the maps was the
inconsistency in toponymy. Extended periods of close contact in the Baltic region has led to
the spawning of a superfluity of place names for the same geographical feature in several
languages. The varying names are simultaneously in use by different groups and it is a bit of
a test to match a feature to all of its names, which may occur in any number of its Finnic,
Slavic, Germanic or Baltic forms.
6.2 Analysis of Spatial Patterns
Acknowledging that the series of maps depicting Balto-Finnic settlements over time
and through space is faulty does not mean that it is entirely useless! Imperfection aside, the
maps may still brilliantly serve as a guide to the historical settlement patterns, albeit
approximate, of the Balto-Finns. From the maps, one can clearly note a marked dispersal
from the homelands originating in the twelfth century through about 1850 and then a retreat
back to more centralized homelands by the accounts of the most contemporary map.
Territorially speaking, the consolidation of the Balto-Finnic speakers becomes visually
apparent.
Coupled with knowledge of specific instances of contact and conflict, the maps help
to envisage and express the distribution of the Balto-Finns in a less mundane manner. The
maps provide the visual imagery, while the events offer answers to the question why the recentralization occurs. Analyzing the maps, it is now understandable why a southern island of
Balto-Finnic speakers suddenly crops up in the 1700s map. It is, of course, due to the fleeing
Karelians after the signing of the Treaty of Stolbova. Also, in the same manner, it becomes
40
evident how the Kven dialect evolved to be distinct from those of Finland's Finnish dialects,
isolated on the northern Norwegian fjords for hundreds of years with little daily contact to
the parent language.
Between the periods of the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, the maps reveal an
expanding pattern particularly in the northwest, as the Karelians arrive at the coast of the
White Sea, and in the west, as Forest Finns from the Savo region of Finland are beginning to
enter what is now the eastern side of Sweden's Varmland province and adjacent areas. An
enclave of Vote speakers, called Krevines, arrive to a southern locale due to imprisonment by
Teutonic Knights also between the epochs depicted on the two maps. (Abondolo,
Lahteenmaki, Niemi, Niilo, Raag)
The eighteenth century map illustrates expansion northward, southward and
westward. It is during this century that many of the Kvens migrated north to the Arctic
Ocean, while immigration continued into the Swedish part of Fennoscandia. At this time, the
area known today as Finland fell under the power of the Swedish Empire and discord in
Savo, perhaps due to taxation or homelessness, propelled many young, unmarried men to
continue to migrate to Sweden. This group of migrants came to be known as the Forest Finns
and along the trip from Savo, many settled along the route of the final destination of
Vermland. Moreover, this map recognizes the repercussions of the signing of the Treaty of
Stolbova, which led to the fleeing of many Karelians to form southern oases of Balto-Finns.
(Christensen, Eles, Hagu, Lehto, Lahteenmaki, Niemi, Viitso, Virtaranta, Westiing)
The years proximate to 1800 begin to show marked decline in the overall spatial
expanses of the Balto-Finnic speakers. A slight recession is noticeable, which separates the
Kvens and the Finns, offering the Kvens an isolated environment, in which their dialect may
41
deviate from the parent northern Finnish dialect. Pockets of Swedish become defined in the
Estonians' territory, a sign of influence of Swedish power in the region and the Estonian
language oasis of Lutsi becomes apparent in present-day Latvian territory. (Russwurm and
Sohlman, Vilkuna, Virtaranta)
King Oskar II of Sweden's swedification policies throughout much of the nineteenth
century caused many of the Forest Finns and their descendents assimilate into Swedish
society. The exceptions to this rule are the Forest Finns of western Varmland province and
the Meankielilaiset of northwest Sweden.
Loss of territory in the St. Petersburg region
becomes evident in the 1850 map and more Estonian-speaking enclaves in Latvia (Ilzene,
Zeltinu and Lejasciems) come into view. The last of the Eastern Livonians, on the eastern
coast of the Gulf of are Riga, are still visible in the 1850 map before they are entirely
assimilated to Latvians. (Anhava, Palander, Viitanen, Vuorela)
By 1900, continued adverse effects of King Oskar IPs assimilation policies may be
seen. The Veps' terrain recedes from its easternmost points, as territories once held by
Balto-Finnic speakers east of Lake Onega disappear, as does more area around St.
Petersburg. Several Balto-Finn enclaves still exist in Latvia, but the Eastern Livonians have
entirely disappeared from Latvian territory. The Forest Finns' territory shrinks to the west.
(Abondolo, Virtaranta, Kallas, Leskinen, Hagu, Ostberg)
The 1950 map yields the complete diminishment of all Estonian and Vote language
oases in Latvia and further recession of the Livonians is witnessed, largely due to stress
brought about by Soviet collectivized farming. The Veps community is now territorially
divided; the Onega Veps remain geographically divorced from the Oyat and Southern Veps,
bridged only by Russian-speaking peoples.
Furthermore, Meankielilaiset lands ebb back
42
from their southern reaches and the Forest Finns continue to reduce their territories in size.
(Anhava, Johansson, Haarman, Leskinen, Niskanen, Rank, Utvik, Virtaranta, Vuorela)
Contemporary territories lack the presence of Forest Finns entirely and the Livonians,
who inhabit twelve fishing villages on the Kolka Horn, scarcely show on the map. Veps
territories continue to recede and the area of Ingria appears to be more and more fractured by
Balto-Finnic speakers and speakers of other languages. Karelian language oases in the south
minimize, as do Kven settlements in the north. Only the Finns and the Estonians, relatively
central in all Balto-Finnic territory over time, retain solid grounds on their traditional lands
over the years. (Fishman et al., Kentta and Pohjanen, Lehtimaki, Lehto, Lindgren, Pugh,
Tikka, Viitso, Virtaranta, Zajkov)
Reading into the maps permits the ability to extrapolate the future trends with data on
the past and present with a clear visual sense of the Balto-Finns inhabitation tendencies. It is
likely that the Balto-Finns' territories will continue to consolidate, judging from the map
series alone. However, movements, such as those discussed in the following section may
suggest that the centralization process, which has unified land and culture, will subside and
perhaps begin a reverse trend as culture flourishes and spills over from the autochthonous
soils.
Settlement of the Balto-Finns in the 1100s
\V-aV w
\r* c-^ J^
•
The color pink denotes Balto-Finn settlement.
)
XI
V
Settlement of the Balto-Finns in the 1500s
The color pink denotes Balto-Finn settlement.
Settlement of the Balto-Finns in 1700
The color pink denotes Balto-Finn settlement.
Settlement of the Balto-Finns in 1800
The color pink denotes Balto-Finn settlement.
Settlement of the Balto-Finns in 1850
* The color pink denotes Balto-Finn settlement.
Settlement of the Balto-Finns in 1900
* The color pink denotes Balto-Finn settlement.
Settlement of the Balto-Finns in 1950
The color pink denotes Balto-Finn settlement.
Settlement of the Balto-Finns in 1990
* The color pink denotes Balto-Finn settlement.
43
7. Legacy
Recent developments have arisen, which are likely to promote the continued
existence of several of these Balto-Finnic languages. Unfortunately, it may not be the case
for some of the moribund languages that now possess very few speakers. For instance, the
process is particularly accelerated in the case of Vote, which possesses no written language
(Viitso 1993: 64). Should there come a time where there are no native speakers left for some
of these languages, especially in the case of Livonian and Vote, their legacy will at any rate
survive, as it would be impossible to erase all of their linguistic influences exerted upon their
neighbors! The Latvian language certainly will not revert back to resembling a form closer
to Lithuanian because Livonian has disappeared.
After centuries of contact, whose
consequences now lie deeply embedded in the hearts of the neighboring languages,
linguistically, the Balto-Finnic languages will assuredly live on in the forms of substrata.
On a less grim note, several happenings in the linguistic communities of the
flourishing Balto-Finnic languages have started to put their statuses on the upswing. On 14
September 2003, the Estonian citizens voted on a referendum to join the European Union.
Membership will allow for the European language to become an official language of the
European Union, joining the ranks of Finnish. Prior to the vote, the Estonian president,
Arnold Ruutel, the chairwoman of the parliament, Ene Ergma, and the prime minister, Juhan
Parts, made a joint statement on behalf of European Union membership on 25 June 2003,
citing that, "Remaining outside the European Union means narrowing the prospects of the
Estonian-language culture," and they urged that the Estonian public vote in favor of
European Union membership to "secure the future of our mother tongue," (Ruutel et al.
2003). Similarly, a comment was made on the Finnish television show Paivarinta several
44
months before the Estonian vote, "Virolle ei ole enaa 'Suomi' tai 'Eurooppa'" [tr. For
Estonia, it is no longer either 'Finland' or 'Europe'], demonstrating a future of broadened
options for Estonia and its people as a member of the European Union (Lappi 2003).
Additionally, in Estonia, approximately one thousand citizens exchanged their
surnames for an ethnic Estonian one in 2002.
Many of those who adopted an Estonian
surname chose to relinquish a Russian - the trespassing language - family name (Eurolang
2003).
The education of youth in their native tongues is becoming more of a fashion in the
Karelian and Veps communities. Petrozavodsk State University, located in the capital of the
Republic of Karelia, offers the opportunity to graduate with a degree in Finnish, Karelian or
Veps. There has been a Finnish chair since 1890, but a Karelian and Veps chair was not
established until 1990, the same year that degrees started to be offered in these languages.
The importance of the Faculty of Baltic and Finnish Philology and Culture at the university
becomes evident as it provides young Karelians and Veps with a background in "theoretical
issues of grammar in Karelian and Veps", considering the languages' youth as academic
languages. Upon graduation, students will be fully prepared for work in education, research
or mass media (Petrozavodsk State University 2003).
Similarly, there has been an influx of publications of children's books in Karelian and
Veps. Figure 10, a map of Vepsan Ma, or the 'land of the Veps', comes from Icemoi
lugemist, a Veps children's reader by Maria Mullonen and Nina Zaiceva (1994). The rest of
the book is filled with traditional songs, poems, stories and illustrations depicting nature and
individuals wearing national costumes.
45
Recent surges of nationalism are not limited to the Estonians, Karelians and Veps,
however. The Meankielilaiset and the Kvens are taking joint action to apply for a position of
membership in the next Finno-Ugric World Congress to be held in Estonia in 2004
(Koivulehto 2003). The 1987 established Kveeniliitto, or Kven Association, developed a
Kven national costume and a flag in 1997 to encourage Kven nationalism (Saressalo
2002:13,94).
Figure 12. Vepsan Ma. From Mullonen.
46
8. Conclusion
In summation, the Balto-Finnic languages and their conditions are dynamic and
always evolving, fueled by the agents of contact and conflict. This dynamism, in turn,
heralds the variability of the territorial expanses of the Balto-Finnic speakers. With the
assistance of the series of maps depicting Balto-Finnic settlement patterns through space and
over time, contemporary centralization in the region may be justified and a familiarity with
key events influencing the history of the Balto-Finnic speakers reveals that there is an
overwhelming cultural strengthening process occurring concurrently.
Such an example may be seen in the recent elevation of the Estonian language in
Estonia's admittance to the European Union. Despite a loss of traditional territory, occupied
Seto, the Estonian linguistic culture continues to thrive and at a more superior level with the
nation's entrance into the European Union.
The promotion of the Veps and Karelian
languages as literary languages also suggests a more unified culture, despite territorial
dissonance and continued russification policies in the Russian Federation. Heightened
cultural awareness is also seen today in the Finnish offshoots of the Meankielilaiset and the
Kvens.
As expected, it must be stressed that the case of each language is relative to its own
unique course of historical contact, conflict and perceived self-identity. Regrettably, the
injuries have already been committed against some of the smaller Balto-Finnic groups and
under the present political and social circumstances it would prove to be extremely difficult
to reverse the trends of vanishing languages. In spite of the relatively small percentage of
Balto-Finnic speakers in comparison to the world's population, these languages are not as
insignificant as they might at once seem. Considering yet again the Estonian and Finnish
47
languages in a different light, it may be observed that the presence of these languages is
undeniably noteworthy. A glance at the numbers and ratios of world languages shows that of
the five to six thousand human languages that exist today, only a few hundred possess over
one million speakers. This detail vaults Estonian and Finnish, both possessing at least one
million speakers, to a status of majority within the realms of the world of linguistics
(Palander 2001:196).
Overall, the Balto-Finnic languages, considered as an entire group, may be classified
on the grounds of numbers and the situation of the larger Balto-Finnic languages to have a
healthy presence or, at least, a growing cultural and linguistic awareness. Even the Livonian
language, whose native speaker count numbers somewhat less than fifty, is experiencing
greater cultural recognition with aims of cultural and linguistic preservation with the support
of the Latvian government with the founding of LTvod Randa to promote the Livonians
(Fernandez 1996, Viitso 1998a:96).
Considering also the longevity of adverse Soviet
influences, such as deportations and forced assimilations, that occurred over many of the
Balto-Finnic speakers for extensive periods of time, the present upsurge in cultural and
linguistic awareness may be the beginning of greater global recognition of the Balto-Finns
that the future holds. However, their sheer survival into the world of today shows that the
centralization of culture, matched with spatial centralization, on account of the outside forces
of contact and conflict, have helped to create their unique identities as ethno-linguistic
groups, separate from their neighbors, and has thus allowed them to avoid entire assimilation
into the dominant groups.
48
Appendix
Liite
Synonymous Names
Multiple names for the same ethnic group often result from the various ethnonyms given to
adjacent peoples and, in many cases, they are derogatory terms for neighboring peoples
(Crystal 1992: 304). In order to rectify this problem, newer, preferred names have been
established to replace the misnomers. Additionally, sometimes the name for an ethnic group
in one language extends to many languages, while sometimes it does not, creating a plethora
of names for one group of people. Below, for the sake of clarification, is a list of additional
names and misnomers, in no particular order, in reference to the same group of people,
following the bolded term that is utilized in this thesis.
Finnflnnish *suomalainen *finsk*finskoi *finnisch *<puHCKuii *finska *suomalaized*some *
soomlane *finlandiera*finlandes*fines
Estonian eestildinen *virolainen *esthnisch *3cmoHCKuii *estniska*estildized*igauni *
estoniera *eesti *eestlane
Karelian carelian*karjalainen *karelisch *kyrjalar *KapejibCKuii *karelsk*karelianne *
kareliera*kariela*karjalaized*kareelska *karjala
Veps vepsian *vepsdlainen *wepsalainen *kajvan *vepsisch *wepsisch *vepse *vepsiska *cud'*
cudar '*eenccKuu *vepslaized*vepsa *vepslaine *vepsjiane *bepslaine *bepsjiaine *bebs *
bepsjiane *nord-tschudiska *chude *chudic
Lude lyydildine *lyydikko HiXdisch *ljudik*ludic Hydisch Hud'i*liugildne *tsuudi*jiwducKuu*
lud'ikoi *luudikoi*lud'inik*luudilaine *lyytiska*livvikoi
Ingrianf inkerilainen *inkerinsuomalaien *ijor-ingriarrak*inkeroine *izoralain*ingerlane *
izorskij *ingrisch *izorad*izorec *izorian *izhorian *isuri*inkeroinen *inkerikko *inkerska *
izhori*inkeroinen *ingermanldndare *uoicopcKUU
Vote votian *votisch *vatja *wotisch *vad'd'ajiain *vad'dadaine *vad'd'alaine *vadja *eodcKuu *
votic *votiska *vod*vadjalaized*vodian *vuutiska *vodskij*voteak*woten *vadilano *vadjalain *
vadjalaizdt*watldnder
Livonian liivildinen *livisch *jiubkuu *lybis *livli*livildized*liiviska*livoniera *libi *lib *livis *
livietis *livy*libis *libietis *libietis *liivlane *rdndali*kaldmiez*liivli
Meankielilainen (pi. Meankielilaiset) Tornio River Valley Finn*Finn-Swede*
tornedalsfinska *tornedalian *Torndalen Finnish
Kven ruijansuomalainen *ruijafinsk*Ruija Finn *kvensk*kveen *kvaen *kvddni*kveeni
49
Saami lapp*sdmi*samerna*samiska*caaMCKuii *same*sami*sabme*sabmelds*samen *
lappi*samisch*sapmi*saamilaized*sdpmelas*lappalainen*lappalaine*vuojolainen*
vuowjos*saam '*saam Ija *fennHop'
Olonets olonetsian *olonets*aunus*livvikovskij*livvik*liggi*livvi*jim6uckuu
Forest Finns metsdsuomalaiset*vermalanninsuomalaiset*Vermlanti Finns*skogfinnar
Hungarian unkarilainen*magyar
Khanty xanty*ostyak*hanti*ostjakki *xaubi uckuu
Mansi vogul*voguli*MaucuucKuu
Udmurt votyak*votjakki *udmurtti *ydMypmcKUU *vudmurt*odmort*udmort *ukmort
Komi zyryan *syrjdnisch *syrddni *syryan *komu *ziryene *siriane *zyryane
Mari cheremis *tseremis*tseremissi *MapuucKU
Mordvin mordva*MopdoecKUU
Nenets yurak*nenetsi*jurakki
Selkup selkuppi*ostyak-samoyed
Enets yenisey*yenisei *enetsi*jeniseinsamojed
Nganasan nganasani*taugi *aram *tavgy *tavgi *avam
t "Ingrian" is an ambiguous term, as it denotes boththe population native to Ingria, as wellas the Finnish immigrant
population thatsettled in Ingria after the signing of the Treaty of Stolbova in 1617 (Ingrian-Finns). In many languages, the
term Ingrian is indistinct and is often used to represent the both populations.
50
References
Viitteet
Aalto, M., 2003. Venajan karjalalla on monet kasvot. In: Kansan Tahto 93:6-7. (E. Matero,
ed.) Oulu: Kustannus Oy.
Aikio, 1987. [map]. In: Norske ord i FinskSprdkdrakt: EnStudie av Nyere Skandinaviske
Substantivldn i Kvensk/Ruijafinsk Tekstmateriale medHovedvektpa Norske Ldn. (H.E.
Utvik) p. 20. Tromso: Institutt for Sprak og Litteratur- Universitetet i Tromso, 1996.
Anhava, J., 1998. Maailman kieletja kielikunnat. Tampere: Baudeamus.
Anttila, R., 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Breton, R., 1993. 'Easy Geolinguists' and Cartographers. In: The Cartographic
Representation ofLinguistic Data: Discussion Papers in Geolinguistics, Nos. 19-21. (Y.J.D.
Peeters and C.H. Williams, ed.) pp. 7-20. Staffordshire: European Centre for
Ethnolinguistic Cartography.
Bylund, U., 1956. [map]. In: Skogsfinnarna och Finnskogen: Rapportfrdn Konferenspa
Torsby Finnkulturcentrum 2 - 4juni 1993. (H. Eles, ed.) p. 117. Karlstad: Torsby
Finnkulturcentrums Skrifter 1, 1995.
Christensen, T., 2002. Finnevandringen vestoverfra ca 1575 til ca 1660-Igrove trek
[map]. In: Skogfinner ogFinnskoger: Vandringene Vestoverpd 1500- og 1600-Tallet - Fra
Finland tilde Svenske og Norske Finnskogene - Og Videre Vestover tilStore deler av
Ostlandet, Oslomarka og Finnemarka. (T. Christensen) p. 31. Oslo: Eget Forlag.
Chyeriyavskaya, V., 1997. Ouhckuu r3uk: npaKmmecKuu xypc. Tjiocca: CamcrneTepGnypr.
Crystal, D., 1992: The Cambridge Encyclopedia ofLanguage. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Elert, C.C., 2002. Language Replacement in First Millenium B.C. in Scandinavia. In: The
Roots ofPeoples and Languages ofNorthern Eurasia IV. (Kyosti Julku, ed) pp. 56-60.
Oulu: Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae.
Eurolang, 2003. The European News Agencyfor Minority Languages. Accessed 26 June
2003 from http://www.eurolang.net
Fernandez, L., 1996. GeoNative. Website, 1996. Accessed 26 June 2003 from
http://geonative.tsx.org
51
Fishman, O.M., N.V. Juhnjova, 0. Konkova, I.I.Shangina, A.J. Zadneprovskaja, 1996.
Historical Ethnographic Composition of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. In:
Karelia & St. Petersburg: From LakelandInterior to European Metropolis. (S. Porter and E.
Varis, ed.) pp. 71-103. Jyvaskyla: Joensuu University Press Oy.
Griinthal, R., 1997. Livvistd liiviin: itamerensuomalaiset etnonyymit. Helsinki:
Castrenianumin Toimitteita 51.
Haarman, H., 1974. Das ingrische Sprachgebiet [map]. In: Die Finnisch-Ungrischen
Sprachen: Soziologische undPolitische Aspekte ihrer Entwicklung. (H. Haarman) p. 114.
Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Haarman, H., 1974. Die votischen Ortschaften in Ingermanland [map]. In: Die FinnischUngrischen Sprachen: Soziologische und Politische Aspekte ihrer Entwicklung. (H.
Haarman) p. 152. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Hagu, P., 1995. Setukaisten identiteetin ongelmat. In: Koltat, karjalaisetja setukaiset:
pienet kansat maailmojen rajoilla. (T. Saarinen and S. Suhonen, ed.) pp. 169-181. Kuopio:
Snellman-instituutti.
Hagu, P., 1995. [map]. In: Koltat, Karjalaisetja Setukaiset: Pienet Kansat maailmojen
Rajoilla. (T. Saarinen and S. Suhonen, ed.) p. 170. Kuopio: Snellmann-Instituutti.
Hagu, P., 1995. Setumaan kunnat [map]. In: Koltat, Karjalaisetja Setukaiset: Pienet
Kansat maailmojen Rajoilla. (T. Saarinen and S. Suhonen, ed.) p. 171. Kuopio: SnellmannInstituutti.
Hellstrom, R, 1976. Finglish. In: American Speech: A Quarterly ofLinguistic Usage 51
(1-2) 85-93. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hellstrom, R, 1979. Finglish Revisited. In: Glossa: An International Journal of
Linguistics 13 (1) 69-80. Burnaby, British Columbia: Department ofLanguage, Literature
and Linguistics, Simon Fraser University.
Huovinen, S., 1983. Suomi ja sen Sukukielet/Finskan och dess Slatsprak. In: Suomi
pohjoisenaisena kielend. pp. 28-53. Espoo: Norden-yhdistysten Liitto, Pohjoismainen
Kielisihteeristo, Pohjoismainen Kieli- ja Tiedotuskeskus, Hanasaaren Kulttuurikeskus.
Hakkinen, K., 1996. Suomalaisten esihistoria kielitieteen valossa. Helsinki: Suomalaisen
Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Itkonen, T., 1984. Suomalaisten maahantulo ja itdmerensuomalaisten kielten keskindiset
suhteet [map]. In : Suomalaisten Esihistoria Kielitieteen Valossa. (K. Hakkinen) p. 87.
Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 1996.
52
Johansson, N., 1987. Oversiktskarta over undersokningsomradet [map]. In:
Tornedalsfinska ordur DialektgeografiskSynvinkel. (N.Johansson) p. 2. Uppsala:
Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Kallas, O., 1894. Lutsi maarahvas. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Kallas, O., 1903. Kraasnamaarahvas. Helsingi: Soome Kirjanduse Seltsi Triikikojas.
Kentta, M. and B. Pohjanen, 1996. [map]. In: Mednkielen kramatiikki. (M. Kentta and B.
Pohjanen) p. 11. Lulea: Forlaaki Kaamos.
Kero, R., 1990. Finns in the New Sweden Colony. In: Turun historiallinen arkisto 46:1-11.
Accessed 15 October 2003 from http://www.genealogia.fi/emi/art/article152e.htm
Kirkinen, H. Kadonneet kansatja kuolleet kielet [map]. In : Suomalaisten Esihistoria
Kielitieteen Valossa. (K. Hakkinen) p. 190. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura,
1996.
Kleerova, T., 2001. The Karelian Language is on the Way to the Law Status. In: Republic
of Karelia: The Official Site of the Administrative Bodies. Accessed 15 October 2003 from
http://www.gov.karelia.ru:8083/gov/News/2001/0827 01 e.html
Koivulehto, L., 2003. Tomiolaaksolaiset alueen alkuperaisvaesto. In: Ruijan Kaiku: norjan
suomalaistenj a kveenien lehti 9(4)5. Troms0: Ruija Forlag As.
Kunnap, A., 1998. Breakthrough in Present-Day Uralistics. Tartu: University of Tartu.
Kunnap, A., 2000. Contact-induced Persepctives in Uralic Linguistics. Munchen:
LINCOM EUROPA.
Lappi, A., 2003. [ed] Pdivdrinta. 16 May 2003. TV1 Ykkonen: YLE:2003, Tarinatalo.
Lehtimaki, P., 1995. [map]. In: Sprachen in Finnland undEstland. (P. Lehtimaki)
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Lehto, M.I., 1996. Ingrian Finnish: Dialect Preservation and Change. Uppsala: Studia
Uralica Upsaliensia 23.
Lehto, M.I., 1996. Territory ofthe Ingrian Finns [map]. In: Ingrian Finnish: Dialect
Preservation andChange. (M.I. Lehto) p. 14. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Leskinen, E., 1937. Entiset Novgorodinja Tverin Iddnien kihlakunnat [map]. In: Karjalan
kieleen: kohdistuneesta tutkimuksestaja harrastuksesta. (E. Leskinen) p. 249. Werner
Soderstrom Osakeyhtio, Helsinki.
53
Leskinen, E., 1937. Itd-Karjalanja Suomen Raja-Karjalan kunnat [map]. 1:4,000,000. In:
Karjalan kieleen: kohdistuneesta tutkimuksestaja harrastuksesta. (E. Leskinen) p. 253.
Helsinki: Werner Soderstrom Osakeyhtio.
Lindgren, 1994. [map]. In: Norske ord i FinskSprdkdrakt: EnStudie av Nyere
Skandinaviske Substantivlan i KvenskJRuijafinsk Tekstmateriale medHovedvekt pa Norske
Ldn. (H.E. Utvik) p. 46. Troms0: Instituttfor Sprak og Litteratur- Universitetet i Troms0,
1996.
Lahteenmaki, E., 2002. Ruotsin suomalaismetsien syntyja savolainen liikkuvuus
vanhemmalla Vaasa-kaudella. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Lahteenmaki, E., 2002. Suomalainen uudisasutuspitdjittdin herttuakunnassa 1579-1586
[map]. In: Ruotsin Suomalaismetsien Syntyja Savolainen Liikkuvuus Vanhemmalla Vaasakaudella. (E. Lahteenmaki) p. 157. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Marcantonio, A., 2002. The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths & Statistics. Boston:
Philological Society.
Marianova, L., 1993. Karjalan tasavallan kielitilanne. In: Uralilaiset kielet tdnddn. (T.
Salminen, ed.) pp. 52-58. Kuopio: Snellman-instituutti.
Morottaja, A., 2002. The Saami People—from Past to Present [lecture]. 08 April 2002.
Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu.
Mullonen, M. andN. Zaiceva, 1994. Icemoi lugemist: vepsdn kelen lugendkirj 3-4
klassale. Petroskoi, Karjala: KHHra ^jia Htchhh Ha BenccKOM ^3bikc
Niemi, E.A., 1978. Suomalaisen uudisasutuksen levidminen Kalotille [map]. In: Kveenien
Maa. (L. Saressalo) p. 25. Tampere: Tampereen Museoiden Julkaisuja 60, 2002.
Niskanen, M., 2002. [map]. In: The Roots ofPeoples and Languages ofNorthern Eurasia
IV. (K. Julku, ed.) p. 188. Oulu: Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae.
Nunez, M., 1998. Old and New Ideas about the Origins of the Finns and Saami. In: The
Roots ofPeoples and Languages ofNorthern Eurasia I. (Kyosti Julku and Kalevi Wiik, ed.)
pp. 151-160. Turku: Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae.
Oinas, F.J., 1985. Studies in Finnic Folklore: Homage to the Kalevala. Helsinki:
Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Palander, M., 2001. Agricolasta inkeriin: juhlakirja Ilkka Savijdrven 60-vuotispdivdksi.
Jyvaskyla: Studia Carelica Humanistica 17 and Joensuun Yliopiston Humanistinen
Tiedekunta.
54
Palander, M., 2001. [map]. In: Agricolasta Inkeriin: Juhlakirja Ilkka Savijdrven 60vuotiaspdivdksi. (M. Palander, ed.) p. 293. Jyvaskyla: Studica Carelica Humanistica 17 ja
Joensuun Yliopiston Humanistinen Tiedekunta.
Petrozavodsk State University, 2003. Faculty ofBaltic and Finnish Philology and Culture.
Accessed 17 June 2003 from http://www.karelia.ru/psu/Faculties/baltfin e.html
Piho, M., 1995. Siperian setukaiset. In: Koltat, karjalaisetja setukaiset: pienet kansat
maailmojen rajoilla. (T. Saarinen and S. Suhonen) pp. 200-220. Kuopio: Snellmaninstituutti.
Pugh, S.M., 1999. Systems in Contact, System inMotion: The Assimilation ofRussian Verbs
in the Baltic Finnic Languages ofRussia. Uppsala: Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 30.
Pugh, S., 1999. [map]. In: Systems in Contact, System inMotion: The Assimilation of
Russian Verbs in the BalticFinnicLanguages ofRussia. (S. Pugh) p. 16. Uppsala: Studia
Uralica Upsaliensia 30.
Raun, A., 1971. Essays in Finno-Ugric andFinnic Linguistics. Bloomington, Indiana,
USA: Indiana University.
Ruhlen, M., 1991. A Guide to the World's Languages: Volume 1: Classification. Stanford
University Press: Stanford, California.
Russwurm and Sohlman, 1852. Den Svenska Bebyggelsen i Estland: vid mitten av 1800-
talet och tidigare [map]. In: Sprachen inFinnland und Estland. (P. Lehtimaki) p. 143.
Viesbaden: Harrassawitz Verlag, 1995.
Ryyppo, I. Muinais-Kainuun alue [map]. In: Norske ord i FinskSprakdrakt: En Studie av
Nyere Skandinaviske Substantivlan i Kvensk/Ruijafinsk Tekstmateriale med Hovedvekt pa
Norske Lan. (H.E. Utvik) p. 15. Troms0: Institutt for Sprak og Litteratur - Universitetet i
Troms0, 1996.
Rank, G. Last Vot settlements. In: The Finno-Ugric Peoples. (T. Vuorela) p. 147. The
Hague: Indiana University, Bloomington, 1964.
Ruutel, A., E. Ergma and J. Parts, 2003. Joint Statement by the President of the Republic,
the Chairwoman of the Riigikogu and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Estonia. (25
June 2003) In: The President ofEstonia. Accessed 26 June 2003 from
http://www.president.ee/eng/avaldused/avaldus.html?gid=35290
Saareste, 1937. Eesti Murrete Arvatav LevikXIII-XVIS [map]. In: Fran Allmogemal till
Nationalsprak: Sprdkvdrd och Sprdchpolitik i Estlandfrdnl857 till 1999. (R. Raag) p. 44.
Uppsala: Studia Multiethnica Upsaliensia, 1999.
55
Saarinen, T. and S. Suhonen, 1995. [ed] Koltat, karjalaisetja setukaiset: pienet kansat
maailmojen rajoilla. Kuopio: Snellman-instituutti.
Sahlman, R, S.S., 1949. The Finnish Language in the United States. In: American Speech:
A Quarterly ofLinguistic Usage 24 (1) 14-22. New York: Columbia UniversityPress.
Saksa, A., 1996. Ancient History of the Population of the Present-Day Leningrad Region.
In: Karelia & St. Petersburg: From LakelandInterior to European Metropolis. (S. Porter
and E. Varis, ed.) pp. 27-37. Jyvaskyla: Joensuu University Press, Oy.
Salminen, T. [ed.], 1993. Uralilaiset kielet tdnddn. Kuopio: Snellmann-Instituutti.
Saressalo, L., 2002. Kveenien maa. Tampere: Tampereen Museoiden Julkaisuja 60.
Savolainen, M., 2001. Theorizing Minority Cultures and Fourth World Nations [lecture].
01 October 2001. Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu.
Silvo, H., 1996. Karelia: History, Ideals, Identity: Karelian History from the Finnish
Viewpoint. In: Karelia &St. Petersburg: From Lakeland Interior to European Metropolis.
(Sisko Porter and Eira Varis) pp. 11-26. Jyvaskyla: Joensuu University Press Oy.
Somby, S., 2001. Saami Culture [lecture]. 09 November 2001. Oulu, Finland: University
of Oulu.
Suihkonen, P., 2002. The Uralic Languages. In: Fennia: International Journal of
Geography. "Finland-Nature, Society, and Regions" 180(1-2): 165-176. (M. Kayhko, ed.)
Vammala: Geographical Society of Finland.
Tarkianen, V., 1958. Mikael Agricola: tutkielmia. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden
Seura.
Tikka, T., 1992. Vepsdldisten asuma-alue [map]. In: Vepsdn suffiksoituneetpostpositiot:
kieliopillisiin sijoihin liittyvd suffiksoituminen. (T. Tikka) p. 7. Uppsala: Studia Uralica
Upsaliensia.
Thomsen, V., 1967. Uber den Einflufi der Germanischen Sprachen aufdie Finnisch-
Lappischen: Fine sprachgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Bloomington, Indiana, USA: Indiana
University.
Vaba, L. and J. Viikberg, 1997. The Endangered Uralic Peoples. Tallinn: Soome-Ugri
Rahvaste Infokeskus. Accessed 01 September 2003 from http://www.suri.ee
Valonen, N., 1980. Ethnologia Fennica: Finnish Studies in Ethnology, vol. 10. Helsinki:
Seurasaarisaatio.
56
Viitanen, F.O., 1917. Pohjois-ruotsin suomalaisetja matkan varrelta vdhdn
pohjoisempaankin lisid kansallisuustaistelujen historiaan. Helsinki: Kansanvalistusseura.
Viitso, T.R., 1993. Etelaliset itamerensuomalaiset kielet eilenja tanaan. In: Uralilaiset
kielet tdnddn. (T. Salminen) pp. 59-65. Kuopio: Snellman-instituutti.
Viitso, T.R, 1998. Estonian. In: The Uralic Languages. (D. Abondolo, ed.) pp. 115-148.
New York: Routledge.
Viitso, T.R, 1998a. Fennic. In: The Uralic Languages. (D. Abondolo, ed.) pp. 94-114.
New York: Routledge.
Vilkuna, K., 1953. [map]. In: Norske ord i FinskSprdkdrakt: EnStudie av Nyere
Skandinaviske Substantivldn i Kvensk/Ruijafinsk Tekstmateriale medHovedvekt pa Norske
Lan. (H.E. Utvik) p. 19. Troms0: Institutt for Sprak og Litteratur - Universitetet i Troms0,
1996.
Virtaranta, P., 1967. Ldhisukukielten Lukemisto. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden
Seura.
Virtaranta, P., 1983. Lahisukuisten Kielten Tutkijoita. In: Sata vuotta suomen sukua
tutkimassa: 100-vuotias suomalais-ugrilaisen seura. (M. Korhonen, S. Suhonen and P.
Virtaranta) pp. 175-254. Espoo: Weilint Goos.
Virtaranta, P., T. Itkonen and P. Soutkari, 1965. [map]. In: Castrenianum: The Centre of
Research into Finnish anditsRelated Languages. (P. Virtaranta, T. Itkonen, P. Soutkari,
ed.) p. 9. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Kirjapaino Oy.
Virtaranta, P., 1967. Das nord- undsiidkarelische Dialektgebiet [map]. In:
Ldhisukukielten Lukemisto. (P. Virtaranta) p. 8. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden
Seura.
Virtaranta, P., 1967. Die livischen Dorfer in Nordkurland [map]. In: Ldhisukukielten
Lukemisto. (P. Virtaranta) p. 225 . Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Virtaranta, P., 1967. [map]. Die vepsische Sprachgebiet [map]. In: Ldhisukukielten
Lukemisto. (P. Virtaranta) p. 110. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Vuorela, T., 1964. The Finno-Ugric Peoples. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University.
Westiing, A., 1954. Ehdotus: Vermlannin suomalaiskulttuurin muistojen sdilyttdmis-ja
hoitotoimenpiteiksi. Karlstad: Nya Wermlands-Tidningens Boktryckeri.
Wiik, K., 2002. Onthe Emergence of the Main Indo-European Language Groups of Europe
through Adstratal Influence. In: The Roots ofPeoples and Languages ofNorthern Eurasia
IV. (Kyosti Julku, ed.) pp. 285-292. Oulu: Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae.
57
Williams, C.H. and J.E. Ambrose, 1993. Geolinguistic Developments and Cartographic
Problems. In: The Cartographic Representation ofLinguistic Data: Discussion Papers in
Geolinguistics, Nos. 19-21. (Y.J.D. Peeters and C.H. Williams, ed.) pp. 7-20. Staffordshire:
European Centre for Ethnolinguistic Cartography.
Wojci, G., 2002. Uralic Languages. 09 September 2002. Tampere: University of Tampere.
Accessed 01 September 2003 from http://www.geocities.com/gwoicikfi/
Zajkov, P.M., 1999. CxeMammecKan Kapma duaneKmoe KapenbCKOZo H3biKa: PecnydnuKa
KapenuR [map]. In: FpaMMamuxa KapenbCKoeo H3biKa: (OommuKa u Mopfyonoem).
(P.M. Zajkov) p. 10. neTpo3aBO^CK: PoccHHCKaa AKaaeMHii HayK KapejibCKHH HayHbift
LJeHTp Hhcthtvt itebiica, JlHTepaTypw h Hctophh.
Zajkov, P.M., 1999. CxeMammecKOR Kapma joo/cuoKapenbCKUX nepu^epuuuux duaneKmoe
[map]. In: FpaMMamuKa KapenbCKoeo fl3UKa: (OonemuKa u Mopfyonozun)•. (P.M. Zajkov)
p. 11. neTp03aBO,n,CK: PoccHHCKaa AicafleMHfl HayK KapejibCKHH HaynbiH IJemp Hhcthtvt
^3biKa, JlHTepaTypbi h Hctophh.
Zlobin, V., 2001. Karelian Language - Will it be Official One? In: Republic of Karelia: The
Official Site of the Administrative Bodies. Accessed 15 October 2003 from
http://www.gov.karelia.ru:8083/gov/News/2001/0305 04 e.html
Ostberg, K., 1978. Kart over Finnskogene 1918 [map]. In: Finnskogene iNorge. (K.
Ostberg) p. 18. Grue: Elverum Trykk A/S.